Page 18 of 31 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 308

Thread: the Chiefs

      
  1. #171

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,201
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    133
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    Quote Originally Posted by L'irlandais View Post
    If one looks at the origins of slavery, we certainly didn’t start that racket.



    .
    Who is we in that statement? the French, the Irish, Africans, Europeans?

  2. #172

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,690
    Thanks (Received)
    50
    Likes (Received)
    269

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    There's not an easy way to tell you this, NWK, I’m afraid I’m a European. You must surely have had suspicions, what with my living on the other side of the Pond ‘n all?

    10 countries that still have slavery .
    The 10 countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery are

    North Korea
    Eritrea
    Burundi
    the Central African Republic
    Afghanistan
    Mauritania
    South Sudan
    Pakistan
    Cambodia
    Iran
    As the Roman Empire expanded they came into contact with the concept. But in the Middle Ages it more or less died out in Europe again, apart from a few areas. The Gulf States too practice this barbaric institution, keeping slaves locked in their hotel rooms when they visit the West. Shame on companies that turn a blind eye to this. The love of money is the root of all evil, they say.
    Last edited by L'irlandais; 1 Week Ago at 19:07.
    I suppose it's like the ticking crocodile, isn't it? Time is chasing after all of us.” ― J.M. Barrie

  3. #173

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,201
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    133
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    Quote Originally Posted by L'irlandais View Post
    There's not an easy way to tell you this, NWK, I’m afraid I’m a European. You must surely have had suspicions, what with my living on the other side of the Pond and all?
    Ok, I thought you were Irish living in France. Nonetheless, you also be black. My point is slavery was trade in Africa. Africans traded Africans to Arabs. By the time Europeans made it to Africa, trade system was established. None of it good, but we are looking at it from the future. Hard to apply todays standard to actions (criminal now) of the past.

    So, yes, Europeans are not responsible for origin of slavery.

    I suspect slavery first documented was in Egypt. I've been to pyramids and lived in Egypt. It was either slave or aliens that built them

  4. #174

    Referees in America
    Not Kurt Weaver's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Ohio
    Grade
    C3
    Join Date
    11 Sep 08
    Posts
    2,201
    Thanks (Received)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    133
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    I wanted finish my responses to this post

    Quote Originally Posted by L'irlandais View Post
    Like I said these folk are not the sharpest tools in the shed. TRU DAT

    I am not alone in thinking that if the problem is white supremacy then the root cause is Systemic racism. That is a fact, you are not alone. But I do not agree with you. I believe it is something much deeper and unsolvable.

    .
    The problem with the terms white privilege, white supremacy, and systemic racism is I have yet to data specific to their existence. I'm not sure how to accurately measure these terms. And when data is presented, I'll have to determine if it is measuring correctly and believable.



    I not even sure what current catagories of current complied statistics would apply. I have a data point, that is terrifying and sickening, and this point disputes all of those 3 items. When I realized this data, I also realized racism will always exist. In my short life span and even in the life of a pure 160+ genius, there is nothing we can do to solve it.

    Please reconsider pinpointing racism (particulary on blacks) on white problems. It will solve nothing. It is non productive. The only answer is to solve your (not you or anyone specific) problems by your self.

    If a rugby team consistantly beats another team, the blame cannot be placed on the ref, the field, the weather, the winning team, covid, shoes, fitness, size, speed. The loses can only be place on the losing team. Only the losing team can change.

    Just a little FYI, I'm in favor of reparations in form of money.
    Last edited by Not Kurt Weaver; 1 Week Ago at 20:07.

  5. #175

    Promises to Referee in France
    L'irlandais's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    CT Alsace-Lorraine
    Grade
    EdR + LCA
    Join Date
    11 May 10
    Posts
    4,690
    Thanks (Received)
    50
    Likes (Received)
    269

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    ...
    Just a little FYI, I'm in favor of reparations in form of money.
    Then we truly are back to square one. Exeter Chiefs are strapped for cash right now. The best they can offer is a name change, and/or an apology. Not sure who they’d have to apologize to, or for what. But if they can save a quid by doing so, that’s the preferred option.
    I suppose it's like the ticking crocodile, isn't it? Time is chasing after all of us.” ― J.M. Barrie

  6. #176

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,419
    Thanks (Received)
    115
    Likes (Received)
    1540

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Not Kurt Weaver View Post
    Your message is hard to respond to. I keep getting timed out and when I post quick reply, it disappears
    Log out and then log in again, and this time, before clicking the "Log in" button, check mark the "Remember me" box.

    You will find you won't get timed out any more, and the next time you come to the site, it will log you in automatically.
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 1 Week Ago at 21:07.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  7. #177

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,742
    Thanks (Received)
    124
    Likes (Received)
    1449

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonSmith View Post
    I think the phrase has been magicked up by the right wing in the USA concerned that they can no longer make bigoted statements without repercussions.

    "Free speech" means only that the Government, except in very limited circumstances, cannot control what or how you say things.

    As a statement of general principle, that's fine.

    But that does mean that society at large, or subsections of society, have to stand by quietly and let you say what you want how you want. If private companies want to no-platform you, that is entirely their right; if consumers want to boycott you, then that's their right. If they want to organize and lobby against you, then that is their right as well. Because they are exercising their right to free speech and assembly.

    Free speech does not mean 'speech without repercussion', and nor should it. 'Cancel culture' is a misnomer.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ancel-culture/

    this is worth a read. 'Intellectual monoculture' is a scary concept and has led to some bad things in our past.
    Last edited by Dickie E; 1 Week Ago at 23:07.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  8. #178

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,742
    Thanks (Received)
    124
    Likes (Received)
    1449

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    Quote Originally Posted by SimonSmith View Post
    I think the phrase has been magicked up by the right wing in the USA concerned that they can no longer make bigoted statements without repercussions.
    it actually has it's roots in black twitter use.

    Here's an example. I posted a question (#149) and a poster (#151) denounced my right to pose the question because I'm Australian and as such, the question is outlandish because I/we haven't addressed other issues. This is 'cancel culture'. And it's insidious.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  9. #179

    Referees in America
    Rank Bajin!
    SimonSmith's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Virginia (USA)
    Grade
    B3
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    8,565
    Thanks (Received)
    67
    Likes (Received)
    846

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    I can't read the article - I'm out of WaPo articles.

    I don't think anyone sensible argues for an intellectual monoculture - unlike, say, the Christian Evangelical right over here.
    But equally, if I, or a group of friends, or a larger group that I can energize, feel that someone said something profoundly offensive or bad - let's say Wiley or Ice Cube - we surely have the right to say that and advocate for what we believe is an appropriate course of action? Or does my freedom of speech not go that far?

    Here's what Popper said: “I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force...”
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
    Marcus Aurelius

    Man may do as he will; he may not will what he wills
    Arthur Schopenhauer

    Tullamore Dew, the Afghan Wigs, and many, many strippers - how to get over your ex. How true.

  10. #180

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,742
    Thanks (Received)
    124
    Likes (Received)
    1449

    Default Re: the Chiefs

    The real problem with ‘cancel culture’

    Opinion by
    Megan McArdle
    Columnist
    ‎July‎ ‎11‎, ‎2020‎ ‎6‎:‎40‎ ‎a.m.‎ ‎AEST
    The online “cancel culture” of Twitter mobs, public shamings and the occasional public firing has become pretty unpleasant of late. And unsurprisingly, people whose job it is to say things resent being hushed. Hence “The Letter,” published this week by Harper’s Magazine, in which 153 writers and public intellectuals warned that widespread cancellation is chilling the free exchange of ideas.

    Indeed it is. I’ve been hearing from people, center-left as well as center-right, who have moved from astonishment to concern to terror as senior editors were fired for running op-eds written by conservative senators or approving inept headlines; as professors were investigated for offenses such as “reading aloud the words of Martin Luther King”; as a major arts foundation imploded because its statement of support for Black Lives Matter was judged insufficiently enthusiastic.
    These people were becoming afraid of their own colleagues, who might, if they feel they’re not being listened to, leak internal communications to friendly websites, or organize a public protest on Twitter.

    Twitter’s reaction to The Letter seemed to illustrate these concerns; unsurprisingly, the letter triggered some of the very tactics it implicitly condemns. To the panicked defenders of the old liberal order, it was a self-rebuttal of progressive claims that they weren’t trying to stifle free expression, even of anodyne sentiments like: “The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.”
    Coincidentally, this controversy erupted just after Osita Nwanevu of the New Republic had published one of the best defenses of cancel culture, justifying it as an exercise of vital First Amendment rights, not just to express displeasure with the words of others, but to freely associate with like-minded people. Which implies the right not to associate, either.
    For backers of The Letter, Nwanevu offers a useful clarification: “Free speech” has turned into a fight about institutional norms and associational privileges, not just civil rights. The arguments may overlap with the civil rights debate, but the points of difference matter.

    To be clear, I’m not neutral in that institutional fight. The cancelers aren’t merely trying to expand the range of acceptable ideas so that it includes more marginalized voices. They are pressuring mainstream institutions, which serve as society’s idea curators, to adopt a much narrower definition of “reasonable” opinion. The new rules would exclude the viewpoints of many Americans.

    Intellectual monocultures are inherently unhealthy, and the tactics by which the new orthodoxy is being imposed are destructive. But I’m enough of an old-school liberal to think that I have to persuade my opponents, and I doubt they’ll be moved by one more anthem to the glories of open inquiry.
    They might, however, consider a few pragmatic problems with imposing their code by Twitter force. Twitter, with its 280-character limit, is not a medium for making lengthy, nuanced arguments. It’s most effective at signaling the things you can’t say. Consider the ultimate Twitter put-down: Delete your account.
    That’s especially a problem for institutions that are in the business of making arguments. Effectively handing over the reins of power to the Twittersphere, as seems to be happening, means offering control to those who are especially adept at not making arguments.

    More broadly, this approach is at odds with what makes any institution function as more than a collection of self-supervising individuals. When much of your workforce is worried about summary firing, they put more and more effort into protecting themselves, and less and less effort into advancing the work of the institution. Doubly so when it is fellow employees who are pressing public attacks, as happened with the Twitter insurrection against a New York Times op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Cotton had called for deploying the military to control riots; outraged staffers responded through coordinated tweets, which read, “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.”
    Though it was framed in the language of workplace safety, this was the kind of critical pressure campaign that is normally run by outsiders, not insiders — customers, not workers. In this, they are demonstrating a growing tendency that conservative policy maven Yuval Levin recently identified among American elites: people treating their institutions as platforms for personal performance, rather than a group effort with its own larger work. That’s a tendency Twitter encourages, and not just among journalists, or academics: The foremost example is President Trump.
    In fairness, the insiders of cancel culture might say that they have no choice: Twitter was their only way to accelerate urgent value shifts that might otherwise have taken decades. They’re right that Twitter speeds everything up, and they’re right that causes like racial equality are urgent — and also that white, straight, cisgender liberals always seem to be asking marginalized people to wait until they get around to fixing things.

    And yet, even the critics clearly recognize that there is great value in these institutions. They might also recognize that there are reasons that institutions favor incremental, internal change. If you hold those sorts of fights on a public and inherently limited platform, then some part of your audience will inevitably wonder whether the ensuing consensus, such as it is, reflects what people actually think, rather than who they are afraid of.
    So achieving victory this way risks damaging the ultimate prize, which is the power those institutions have as institutions, not just algorithmic amplifiers. That power is rooted in the perception that they are the patient accumulators, and, yes, the occasional revisionists, of something broad enough to be called “mainstream discourse.”
    It’s that power, not the names on the doors, that lets those institutions establish the boundaries the cancelers are really hoping to control: not just of what people are willing to say in public, but what they are willing to believe.
    msf..
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •